Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We actually see in that trivial move how little those opposite have any respect for, in this case, three important documents. One of those documents is House of Representatives Practice, the second is the standing orders and the third—and most important in this case—is something called the Australian Constitution. That is the basis on which this motion rests, particularly sections 53 and 56 of the Constitution and the principle of the financial initiative of the executive. Section 53 of the Constitution is very clear, and it states:

Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate.

Advice which I have received considers the bill from the Senate to be a proposed law appropriating moneys, very clearly. Section 56 of the Constitution states:

A vote, resolution, or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or moneys shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated.

The financial initiative of the executive is enshrined not just in the Constitution, of course, but in House of Representatives Practice and in standing orders. House of Representatives Practice has been used in this chamber since Federation, for 108 years. Page 408 of House of Representatives Practice states:

It is a long established and strictly observed rule which expresses a principle of the highest constitutional importance that no public charge can be incurred except on the initiative of the Executive Government.

The Executive Government demands money, the House grants it, but the House does not vote money unless required by the Government …

Page 567 of House of Representatives Practice states:

A private Member may not initiate a bill imposing or varying a tax or requiring the appropriation of revenue or moneys. This would be contrary to the constitutional and parliamentary principle of the financial initiative of the Executive—that is, that no public charge can be incurred except on the initiative of the Government.

Then we come to the standing orders. Standing order 180 clearly spells out the principle again:

(a)

All proposals for the appropriation of revenue or moneys require a message to the House from the Governor-General recommending the purpose of the appropriation in accordance with section 56 of the Constitution.

(b)

For an Appropriation or Supply Bill, the message must be announced before the bill is introduced.

(c)

For other bills appropriating revenue or moneys, a Minister may introduce the bill and the bill may be proceeded with before the message is announced and standing order 147 (message recommending appropriation) applies.

Page 568 of House of Representatives Practice says the following:

It would not be possible for a private Member to obtain the Governor-General’s recommendation for an appropriation. Furthermore, of those bills requiring a Governor-General’s message, only those brought in by a Minister may be introduced and proceeded with before the message is announced. Therefore, only a Minister may bring in a bill which appropriates public moneys.

Page 431 of House of Representatives Practice deals with section 53 of the Constitution and limitations on Senate powers of amendment. It states:

Section 53 of the Constitution, as well as limiting the rights of the Senate in the initiation of legislation, provides that the Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

So the position is very clear. The bill proposed by the opposition amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 to change pension entitlements. These entitlements are funded by a standing appropriation, and the effect of the amendments proposed in the bill would be to increase the actual amount of money appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum of the bill states that the financial impact is $1.45 billion a year. Notwithstanding the fact that Treasury has questioned the figures done by those opposite, it is clear on the basis of legal advice that the bill can only originate in the House.

It can only be introduced into the House by a minister and it cannot be passed by the House without a message from the Governor-General. It is very clear that this bill cannot be considered by the House. We do not actually have an option on that. That actually is not a political decision by either side of parliament. It has something to do with a responsibility by us as members of the House of Representatives to act in accordance with the Constitution. But, of course, those opposite know that that is the case because they are not serious. That is why they did nothing about the base rate for 12 long years in office. Just last year when Mal Brough put forward—

See this speech in context